2016 (11) TMI 400

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the Respondent Order The fact of the present case is that on scrutiny of the appellant's documents, it was revealed that there was discrepancy in the inventory of input during the period November to June, 2011 involving Cenvat credit of Rs. 32,28,644/-. The show cause notice was issued alleging that inputs were not consumed in or in relation to the manufacture of final product, accordingly dem....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....submits that in the show cause notice and in the orders of the lower authorities there are no allegation or evidence that appellant either not received the input or removed clandestinely. In such case, even though minor discrepancy is there the Cenvat credit could not be denied. She placed reliance in appellant's own case on the identical issue reported as M/s. Tata Motors Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....there is shortage of input, the same must be lying in the factory. On the identical issue in the appellant's own case cited by the Ld. Counsel, this Tribunal has decided the issue relying on the decision of Maruti Udyog Ltd[2004(173) ELT 382(Tri. Del) which was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported as [2015(319) ELT 549(SC)] held as under: 4.1 I find that the case of the appellant is squarely....